get_portfolio_readiness_rollup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content: it commits to the concrete aggregates returned (avg readiness, at-risk count, customer-concentration risk) and the normalization guarantee ("comparable by construction"), which matters since no output schema exists. It is silent on pagination/limits and access errors beyond the schema's ownership note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the what (scorecard) before the who (PE/VC operators). "Comparable by construction" is slightly jargon-heavy but carries real meaning about normalization; there is no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return content via its aggregate list, and the sole parameter is schema-documented. Adequate for an agent to call and interpret it, though it omits scope/size limits on "every portfolio company".

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (portfolioId) and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the ownership constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (portfolio-wide scorecard of every portfolio company) and the ranking metric (Revenue Readiness Index), which implicitly distinguishes it from the company-level sibling assess_company_readiness. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"For PE/VC operators monitoring a book" identifies an audience and a rough context, but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition and no routing against assess_company_readiness or generate_portfolio_brief. Usage is implied, not specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.